Yes. Partially applied, (iterateN n) is a kind of iterate function, but
(iterateN f) would be some kind of "function converting an integer into
a function", which is much less useful. I would think that the number of
iterations would usually depend on the function iterated, not the other
way around.
Maxime Henrion wrote:
> Dan Weston wrote:
>> I like that name, and will henceforth use it myself until someone sees
>> fit to add it to the Prelude!
>> Oh, and I guess we'd also need:
>> genericIterateN :: (a -> a) -> Integer -> a -> a
>> Which also got me thinking, wouldn't it make more sense to have the
> count as the first parameter?
>> iterateN :: Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
> genericIterateN :: Integer -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
>> Cheers,
> Maxime
>>